Not in my life time well at least I do not see AA leaving MIA with a 2.5 billion dollar terminal that will be done after my life time.Just kidding (sort of) the hub and spoke will always be around to some degree.I can remember 7 or 8 years ago on this forum the same subject and we still have them today.

Regardless, there are always going to be those small towns across the world that can only support air service to one or two major cities. Simply put, without the hub and spoke system, how would people from these towns travel about? The entire system might not be the most efficient for connecting from ex. Chicago to New York to London, but it definitely is the only option for people travlling from ex. "Small Town USA" to New York to London.

Quite frankly I don't see the Hub and Spoke system dissappearing for a very long time, for this very reason. IMHO, it would leave too many people "hanging out to dry".

Many have heralded the end of the hub and spoke system, many have been wrong. Likewise, Open Skies will do nothing to change this. The hub and spoke system will only expand further. HOWEVER, the big difference we shall see is that markets with significant OD will see increased point to point service and you may see more focus city type operations (witness FL's recent weekend only MCO-SAN service which is almost entirely local). However, in the grand scheme of things, hub and spoke will only strength and be enhanced further by greater international hub and spoke presence between Alliance partners.

The combination of open skies and alliances definitely cuts spokes out. Folks in cities like BDL and SEA, for example, can get to Europe non-stop on a US flag carrier (talking about NW here) and get pretty much anywhere in the world with only one stop, but only because of both liberal air traffic rights AND the NW-KL partnership. Both parts of this equation are necessary for the streamlining that liberalization will bring.

This is particularly true because, with the exception of Ireland and London, very little change will result from open skies. If US wanted to start flying WAW-PHL, for example, they could start that within a couple of months. And with respect to Ireland, there's not really sufficient O&D on the US end for a US carrier to start service other than to a hub. Might EI expand a little? Sure, but that's still service to their hub at DUB.

With respect to London, there are certainly possibilities in this country, but ask yourself who would really start new service. Most of the routes being tossed around, things like DEN-LHR, involve a carrier's hub. BA isn't going to start ORD-LGW service for sport, for example (and even so, LGW is a hub for them). I wouldn't look for IND-LHR on NW or anything like that.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):No, there will always be a need for hubs. But planes like the 787 might eliminate one stop from a three stop trip. Instead of going point-hub-hub-point, you may be able to travel point-hub-point.

Open Skies will not end the hub system, but it's another nail in the coffin of the A380.

Quoting Danny (Reply 6):The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

So far we hardly see any point to point flights over the Atlantic. Hub to hub and hub to point dominate.

Well, one could argue that a mix will work... personally, from a network perspective, AA or WN has a nice stance compared to the rest of the carriers (not to say that it's better but more diverse), I would argue that as traffic increases we will see more point to point flying (being cheaper) provided revenue justifies it, but we will still continue to see some hubs due to small markets which can't sustain it... honestly, I like AA"s Approach with few hubs, and multiple focus cities.. focusing on O/D traffic has allowed them to keep capacity there for the locals and cut down on Conx given that atleast one hub (ORD) is prone to delays...

Obviously in this system the focus city is much larger than todays idea of a focus city, the focus city today as we see it such as DL @ CMH, is more fo the shift to point to point rather than a "true focus"

Quoting IAHFLYER (Thread starter):With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?

It will increase fragmentation which will drive the widebodies smaller and the narrowbodies bigger, but it won't kill hub and spoke. You will see Hub to Hub replaced with Hub to Point (so instead of 2x777 daily to ORD from LHR being fed by 5 737s into LHR, you instead will see 2x787 to ORD, 1x787 to DEN, being fed by 4 737s into LHR) . You will see the expansion and/or fragmentation of alliances which will try to work in the 4 major LCC carriers (WN, B6, FL, F9) and capitalize off of smaller hubs in addition to the old mega hubs.

You will also see more competition on the mega routes. B6 sooner or later will have a LHR or LGW service out of LGA. There will be more international at the second largest hub in each system (with the probably exception of DL). DEN, PIT, IAH will all see more international service that will leach traffic out of ORD, CLT and EWR.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 13):DEN, PIT, IAH will all see more international service that will leach traffic out of ORD, CLT and EWR.

This will be decent. How will IAH see more international traffic leach out of ORDCLT or EWR, or are you referring to different airlines' respective hubs, like PIT with CLT for US, DEN with ORD for UA, and IAH with EWR for CO? What about CLE with EWR?

Come to think of it, I guess you are referring to three airlines' respective hubs the way you worded that statement

Quoting IAHFLYER (Thread starter):With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?

certainly not... keep in mind, if you want to have point to point connections ONLY you would have to connect EVERY airport in Europe to EVERY airport in the US.... now that's quite unrealistic, isn't it?

Focus city is just another word for a small-scale hub... no difference in its basic functions. Give passenger the opportunity to connect from A to B. Thus most carriers have a far more extensive hub-and-spoke system than advertized.

I think you will see "mega" hubs slowly dissolve as traffic moves more and more from starting where people are and ending where they want to go, with little to no stops between.

There is just far too many smaller and medium sized airports that can support becoming "mini-hubs" if needed so that you can get from anywhere major to anywhere major in only 1 stop each way. Even more so with aircraft like the 787 where the trip costs are low enough that you can dump 1/2 the plane after a transatlantic at one airport, then carry the other 1/2 to another airport and make your money no question.

Basicly I'm thinking over time more and more airlines will route more and more like WN does if for no other reason than some airports will be unable/unwilling to support new or smaller airlines for reasons from political (DFW), capacity (LHR), or whatever. So if you are late to the party that is transatlantic flights, you don't have a choice but to avoid the large airports and service other airports, even for "hubbing". Then as these new flights move passengers from the major hubs to the secondary airports the traffic flow to the major hubs diminished, thus over time the major hub gets reduced in overall size compared to the other airports... thus a Mega-hub over time is no longer a mega hub.

Quoting Danny (Reply 6):The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

Absolutely spot on Danny, a network is a network and can encapsulate both models happily from a variety of perspectives especially the market orientated one, in fact one could not exist without the other, they are not mutually exclusive.

Many have called PIT a focus city for US. In fact, it still functions as a hub, the main idea there is service to local and regional markets with connections to larger markets farther away (as opposed to large-scale transcontinental operations - that's what PHL, CLT, and PHX are for). Same with AA at STL, with major connecting hubs at ORD and DFW.

In contrast, AA, DL, and US each have sizeable operations at LGA sometimes called a small hub. In fact, LGA has very little connecting traffic, and most flights there are full just from O+D traffic.

Quoting IAHFLYER (Thread starter):With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?

I can't see how the two are that related. 80% of the locations in the US aren't going to support direct flights to anywhere to the EU, are they? They can't even support direct flights to more than a couple of cities in the US. Really, you skipping about 2 or 3 layers of complexity here. A real stretch.

That was my thinking. Somebody said that above that PIT would be a secondary hub, but I am not sure about that. It is US' fourth largest station, behind CLT, PHL and PHX in that order. It has about 15 or 20 more daily flights than LAS, with roughly 130 or so. It looks like there is a lot more regional service returning to PIT as well...

Primary focus/gateway
Infrastructure to support 1,200+ daily operations, at least 2 parallel runways
60+ destinations served by the primary airline, maybe a little less if its a INTL gateway like DL @ LAX

Secondary focus
infrastructure to support 800+ daily operations, parallel runways desired
30+ destinations served by primary airline, half of which are probably on regional feed like AA at RDU

Anyways, again i pretty much made this up myself, but I believe itd be a better way to classify hubs and focus cities to better indicate the true airport role.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 18):Focus city is just another word for a small-scale hub... no difference in its basic functions.

Technically incorrect, though functionally realistic.

A hub is a location where banks of flights are specifically timed for connecting to each other. Nothing more, nothing less. Size and number of flights have nothing to do with it per se.

A focus city is an operation with flights catering to specific O&D + specific service patterns. If large enough, significant amounts of passenger transfer can occur by default; and the airline may even add one/two/several flights intentionally timed to feed/connect to others (though not entire banks).

As you can see, the technical application can easily be skewed... and there's also the great irony that, by "rolling" (i.e., depeaking the banks) of their largest hubs; the likes of DL & AA have essentially transformed ATL & DFW from hubs into large focus cities. Who knew?

Primary focus/gatewayInfrastructure to support 1,200+ daily operations, at least 2 parallel runways60+ destinations served by the primary airline, maybe a little less if its a INTL gateway like DL @ LAX

Funny that, by this runway definition, LHR would be a primary focus city, as well as YUL...

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):Open Skies will not end the hub system, but it's another nail in the coffin of the A380.

Any reason to trash the 380! Regardless if you call LHR/ORD/LAX/FRA/CDG hubs or not they only have so much space and slots and as has been stated ad nausium by just about every forcast regarding airtraffic the growth is going to be exponential for the next 50 years. Big cities demand big lift and that's what the 380 will do. Of course cities like CVG-MXP and such are better suited to 787/350 but not every market is the same and will demand different loads based on O&D and hub connex demand.

I like the rolling hub that AA has initiated in which flights arrive and depart for various destinations instead of the bank system. I hope I understand this correctly. This is how WN operates their large operation airports like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and others. For a city like Tucson, frequent flights to Las Vegas allow for connections around the nation. When you include WN one-stop flights, there are a lot of options.

Hub & spoke was developed because of .......... lessons learned from the aviation "history", if you look at the "predicted growing rates of pax in the future a lot more airports will be "slot" restricted and bigger equipment (747-?, 380) will be needed, I know A & B would rather have no hubs or very small ones so they could sell more aircrafts..... operating point to point would never work with out the good old hubs.

When i was growing up in Australia I didn't understand the hub & spoke system here in the USA, now that I have been living here for about 8 years and travelling about, I can see that it isn't always perfect, but it is probably the best setup you can impliment to make for an economical service.

There are just too many small cities around the country that cannot provide the traffic volume to a large number of destinations. Funnel the traffic from those cities into the Hubs to generate larger traffic numbers to make the routes better.

if I look at my travel requirements over the last 5 years I need hub and spoke. I am lucky as I live close to a hub (MSP) but I have travelled over this time to possibly 40 airports outside of USA that are not hubs and they have no chance of being a point to point from my local airport. So if MSP was not a hub for NW and AMS not a hub for KLM how would I get to WAW or LEI or MAN or CPT or TPE or HKG or MUC or ALC or CWL or CPH or MAD or so many others. I could only imagine 2 or 4 more connections than I already do.
Even if the ammount of point to point were doubled some passengers would need to take one flight to get to the first or last point which would make them mini hubs.
Long live the hub and spoke.

Amen!!! and how about if I wanted to fly from LNS or MDT to LAX... um... the last time I checked, a turboprop cannot fly 2600 miles, but a flight to PIT or ORD can put me on a plane that is capable of flying that distance

We are just at the beginning of a huge concentration process. Number of airlines will reduce to half or a third within a few years, and less airports will have connectivity everywhere. Airports and more air spaces will run into their limits, and the answer will be ever larger aircrafts. There will be exceptions, mainly in the US, but generally we will see 737-300 replaced by 737-800 or A321, B767 or A300 by A330/B777, Airbus and Boeing are pressed to double stretch their 787/350 before the first is in the air. Average aircraft will become bigger. Hubs will have to handle more passengers.

On this note, there is a poll on our site asking about your preferences. This isn't necessarily which is the "best", but which one you like (for whatever reason). You don't need to sign up to vote or see the results, but would need to if you wanted to comment as to why you think the way you do. (Of course, there are other reasons you may want to register on there!) We would love to hear from you!

Smaller towns and cities just don't have the market or airport infrastructure needed to fly to Europe or Asia the hub/spoke systems will likely stay for that matter. Most towns and cities in Atlantic Canada except YHZ need to fly to YUL or YYZ to fly to Europe or Asia or even U.S.

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 42):Smaller towns and cities just don't have the market or airport infrastructure needed to fly to Europe or Asia the hub/spoke systems will likely stay for that matter.

Anyone for US opening a hub at COS?

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 40):There will be exceptions, mainly in the US, but generally we will see 737-300 replaced by 737-800 or A321, B767 or A300 by A330/B777, Airbus and Boeing are pressed to double stretch their 787/350 before the first is in the air. Average aircraft will become bigger. Hubs will have to handle more passengers.

So what does this mean then, for airports like LAX, ORD, PHL, and JFK, particularly JFK and PHL, airports that already see in excess of 30 million pax annually and are out of room for growth, or just about out of room. I think ORD still has room to expand, not sure about LAX though...

AMEN TO THAT!!!! Quite frankly the Aviation system cannot survive without the hub and spoke. The thing I dont understand about this post is why some think that it has to be one or the other. Its true that with the arrival of the 787, we might see more international service from secondary hubs, but the system will remain. I think the perfect example is IAH (even though its the biggest CO hub, it plays second place to EWR in terms of international destinations served with Mexico and central America as an exception). I think we will see more build up at IAH for CO once the 787 arrives.

But back to the point, both Hub and Spoke and Point to Point services are nececary. Some cities cannot support a hub, but need service to certain points. A perfect example is AUS. AUS-LAX on AA does very well. It is obvious that a link between the two cities is needed, however AUS could not support a hub. But I think hub and spoke will remain predominant.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 46):But back to the point, both Hub and Spoke and Point to Point services are nececary. Some cities cannot support a hub, but need service to certain points. A perfect example is AUS. AUS-LAX on AA does very well. It is obvious that a link between the two cities is needed, however AUS could not support a hub. But I think hub and spoke will remain predominant.

I think PIT would be another good example of point2point flying, but that has been argued to death...

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 46):But back to the point, both Hub and Spoke and Point to Point services are nececary. Some cities cannot support a hub, but need service to certain points. A perfect example is AUS. AUS-LAX on AA does very well. It is obvious that a link between the two cities is needed, however AUS could not support a hub. But I think hub and spoke will remain predominant.

I think PIT would be another good example of point2point flying, but that has been argued to death...

Quoting Luketenley (Reply 56):There's not enough space between parellels at PIT? I thought there was a mile or so between 28R/10L and 28C/ 10C??

I am still finding it hard to believe myself. PIT was designed to handle something along the lines of ATL; the runways can handle any kind of aircraft pretty much. I believe the taxiways are adequate, there are 2 runways at least 2 miles in length.

So then I guess this confirms that PIT has the capabilities/facilities to function as a primary hub, but it lacks the pax market to support some 1,200 flights. It barely had half that many when US had its fortress hub there. I believe that PIT handled "only" 650 flights at its zenith.

These flight count numbers and rules are completely arbitrary and therefore useless. It's all a matter of the function that is being served for an airline. Take a small, single-hub airline based out of someplace small. Are you going to tell me that they need to have 200 destinations? I believe FL doesn't even have 200 destinations but you are going to claim that they don't have a "primary hub"? People in ATL may want to argue that point. Hell, the #200 metro area in the country is Bryan/College Station, TX with a population of only 152K.

Vanguard was based out of MCI, National out of LAS. They met none of your 3 criteria above... but the function of their respective fields was that of a primary hub. What IS that function? To be able to connect passengers from across your entire network specifically so you don't have to run a ton of point to point flights to accomodate every possible O&D combination.

THAT is why the H&S system logistically CANNOT die. If you serve 200 cities, you would have 40000 potential city pairs. Serve 300 cities and you now have 90000 city pairs! Not cool. Even at one flight per day, that is impossible to deal with. So now, you have to arrange for people to connect to another flight someplace. And, in order to avoid pissing people off, you have to do so in such a way that they don't wait hours... or even overnight... between those flights. As you can see, the logical progression here is to start scheduling flights so that they arrive and depart in waves to simplify those connections. The more connections you have in a group, the more exponential the potential service you are providing.

For each destination you add to a hub (and bank) that already serves n, you are now connecting that new city to those n destination... both directions. (n cities get a new potential destination). As you can see, the mathematics are exponential.

If you truly beleive in the premise that people (unlike US) want to get to their desination in the shortest time with the least number of connections, then the ONLY solution is a H&S system. In a single-hub arrangement, for any non-hub city to a non-hub city, you can guarantee that they get there in 2 hops.

For a multiple-hub arrangement where each hub supports different cities (with possible overlap for larger cities) and where the hubs are connected, for travel from any non-hub city to a non-hub city, you can guarantee that the maximum number of flights is 3. (Origin->Hub->Hub->Desination)

Additionally, with a banked hub, you can arrange it so that connection times are a reasonable amount for ALL connections. (Banked hubs have their own issues surrounding use of resources, however. Rolling hubs can be done better).

Of course, as the number dictate, a H&S system can, and should, be augmented by direct traffic between city pairs that warrant it by their demand numbers. For example, if you have 4 full planeloads of people a day who are specifically going between A and B, why not run 4 planes between them directly (bypassing hub H). There's no need to make them change planes or tie up resources at H. After all, chances are you have flights from H to A and B anyway that will serve the flow from the rest of your network.

So, the answer is that (despite the fact that the original poster's question regarding Open Skies was silly), the H&S system will be intact forever. It is the only logical way to move people in the most efficient way.

Partially true...i clearly stated that those were terms and benchmarks i developed myself after working on several statewide airport system plans and airport master plans, while using FAA planning guides.

HOWEVER..... try having a primary hub at an airport lacking the specified and what do you get.... EWR delays!

Airports like PHL and EWR do not have the infrastructure to support the hub operation now, let alone any future growth. The numbers of cities and flight were arbitrary, but the airfield infrastructure in conjunction with the amount of flights is a good benchmark for the size fo hub you should be.

DEN has PLENTY of excess airfield capcity (provided they invest in more snow removal equipt), where as EWR is like trying to fit 4 large adults into a C-172...... its just not possible (nor safe).

I was simply suggesting that in the future that the largest hubs will be at the places that have the most infrastructure, the classifications were from the AIRPORT PLANNING side rather than from the AIRLINE side, so that places like MKE and ATL are not both classified as "primary hubs" because of YX. Airports are ranked on what they serve and size of operation, not their role for a specific airline, because the total operation is whats not important from a future growth planning perspective.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 61):HOWEVER..... try having a primary hub at an airport lacking the specified and what do you get.... EWR delays!

Again, you have some undefined premises about 1) the size of the airline in question and 2) the resultant requirements definition of a "primary hub". See my Vanguard or National examples. If CO wasn't there, could a small airline hub out of EWR? Sure.

Where you are lacking is the fact that, even if your criteria were met, it is very possible for an airline to over-utilize a facility. That is the case in your EWR example as well as what AA and UA do with ORD. So, the delays have less to do with the nature of the facility in question - but a lot to do with the unreasonable expectation of what can be done with that facility. If Vanguard were to have grown sufficiently to try to run 10 times as much out of MCI, it would have looked a lot like EWR's situation.

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 62):See my Vanguard or National examples. If CO wasn't there, could a small airline hub out of EWR? Sure.

I said this is not from the airline perspective, this is looking at the airport as a whole, in terms of total output and capacity.

The current criteria used by the FAA is:
Large hub = >1% of total US annual enplanements
Medium Hub >.25% but
Small Hub > .05 but < .249%
Non Hub > 10,000 enplanements but < .05%

I was suggesting a better classification of the large hub category,

By better categorizing the airports in terms of total output compared to the facilities and infrastructure it would allow for FAA to better prioritize projects. Meaning that if an airport is expected to exceed its service role, then infrastructure of the next category should be planned. Airports that are congested and over served with regards to their infrastructure should have restrictions to ensure safety and reasonable levels of delay. This would occur in the form of slots, peak period pricing or restrictions on the amount of small aircraft (RJs)

Again this is an AIRPORT PLANNING guidelines/criteria rather than an airline operations guide.

WN appears to be using multiple rolling hubs in the US, with their hubs (or focus cities) being airports where there is a good amount of O&D traffice. Places like LAS, MDW, BWI, SLC, etc. So I can fly from SEA -MDW-Albany(ALB), NY with one stop, next fly ALB to BWI direct, and finish my trip BWI-MDW-SEA. On the map the direct flight would have nearly flown over the "hub". For the airline there was little extra miles flown which have costs. For the passenger the 1 stop only added the the time "on the ground" which also includes time for takeoff and landing. Not bad.

Contrast doing the same trip with Delta - SEA-ATL-ALB, ALB-ATL-BWI, and BWI-ATL-SEA. Nearly a days journey each leg and some 6 extra hours in the air. Delta probably needs to charge more than WN as their costs would probably be much high, but would not get the traffic unless a lower price. But thier competative picture would improve if they had a better focus city in the upper midwest.

I see the flourishing of secondary hubs and focus cities with the newer smaller planes. MSP is excellent for NW as they are dominant in the city with high margin fares for the O&D traffic, but they also use NRT, SEA, DTW, BOS, and AMS as hubs/focus cities. From any of those, you can get to an incredible number of destinations (in particular with partners added) usually with just one stop. From the smaller cities around, like Des Moines, the world is available in 2 stops.

What I see is dillution of Hub and Spoke, more locations being viable as a hub and more spokes from each hub being viable and profitable. This hub for one airline would still be a spoke destination for a different airline.

This illustrates the importance of hub positioning. NW, for example, can't connect from the west to the south as well since they have to go through either MSP or MEM as the best bets. CO can't connect the northwest to the southwest. USAir(friggin)ways completely lacks the ability to connect anything west of the Mississippi to each other.

Of the majors, for example, an airline like UA has the best possible multiple hub setup. One east coast, a midwest, a mountain and a west coast. You don't have the possibility of what you illustrated in SEA-ATL-ALB where you have to go too far out of your way physically.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.